Monday, December 3, 2018

The Glasgow SNP councillor Mhairi Hunter today rebuked those who were pushing for alternatives to an independence referendum by pointing out that a referendum is firm SNP policy, and that she personally does not believe that there is any route to independence without a referendum. That argument troubles me a bit, because the vast majority of people who are talking about alternatives are not doing it because they oppose a referendum - quite the reverse, in fact. A referendum is their preferred option, but they feel it has now been closed off. If the referendum policy must be regarded as gospel, then by all means let's hold a referendum - but even the dogs on the street know that will entail going ahead without a Section 30 order, which both the Tories and Labour appear to be committed to refusing for the foreseeable future. We're told that Nicola Sturgeon would never go ahead without a Section 30, which is exactly why there needs to be an alternative to a referendum. It would be intellectually dishonest to maintain that you're in favour of a referendum if you're implacably opposed to actually taking the steps necessary to bring a referendum about in the real world. That would be a strategy for not even really seeking to obtain independence, while having a good excuse with which mollify your supporters.

Fortunately, however, it appears that other senior SNP people disagree with Mhairi and are giving serious thought to possible methods by which an outright mandate for independence can be secured by an election, rather than by referendum. An article in the Sunday Times suggested that the next Westminster election could be used to reinforce the current mandate for an independence referendum, and if that was ignored a subsequent Westminster election could then be used to obtain an outright mandate for independence itself. It was implied that the second mandate would require some kind of super-majority in terms of seats won, but not necessarily an absolute majority of votes cast.

I must say that sounds unnecessarily convoluted to me. We already have the mandate for a referendum, that mandate has already been ignored, so the obvious next step is to seek an outright mandate for independence at the next appropriate election - which I think logically should mean the next Holyrood election. Even if we did end up seeking yet another mandate to hold a referendum, it seems a bit odd to say that we need a majority at Westminster for that, given that the 2014 indyref was held when the SNP had only 6 out of 59 Scottish seats in the House of Commons. The much more natural arena for settling these questions is the Scottish Parliament.

On the plus side, though, at least there's a chance that the next Westminster election could only be a few months away - that's largely outwith our control, but it could well happen. If that's the way it pans out, at least we wouldn't be mucking about indefinitely. And even if I'm slightly dubious about the exact details of this strategy, I'm very glad that consideration is being given to credible options for breaking the logjam.

There was a unionist chap on Twitter yesterday who described any suggestion of abandoning the referendum idea in favour of an election as "fundamentalist". If that's true, the source of the fundamentalism is a newly-radicalised British nationalist establishment that has made the holding of a referendum either difficult or impossible, and has left us with no option but to find an alternative. Taking the best available option within the constraints that others have placed on you is a form of pragmatism, not extremism. (The alternative course of action, which I fear Mhairi Hunter is agitating for, would be impotent utopianism.) One thing I've started to do is delete comments on this blog which gloat that "there isn't going to be a referendum", not on the basis that the Scottish people don't want one, but simply on the basis that Westminster will block it regardless of circumstances. If the only argument you've got is "you're living in a dictatorship, suck it up", you haven't really got an argument at all.

58 comments:

I have to confess to becoming uneasy and frustrated with some SNP comments about this issue. The UK has never voluntarily given any of its former colonies an easy route to self determination. Scotland will be no different, in fact probably far more difficult as it's Scottish economic strength that is helping keep UK afloat.

It's time to stop cow-towing to Westminster and London, and simply state "we will have a referendum, and we will consider the vote the will of the Scottish people". then trust in ourselves to take the result to the world and state our case for acceptance back into the world community as an Independent State once again.

This fudging and deals are extremely disconcerting and worries me that a real, golden opportunity will be lost because the SNP still seem to think they need to be squeaky clean, whilst fighting the dirtiest state machinery in the world. Time to grow some ...

The Scottish Claim of Rights was upheld in the Westminster Parliament recently as voting against it would have broken the Treaty of Union. The Scottish people can hold a referendum when ever they wish.

Why does this discussion never start from Scottish legal and sovereign rights...before jumping to the outcome?

A referendum is one answer - it was also the one to the preceding prevailing set of circumstances...but it is not the answer to all circumstances.

For example: - if England wanted to leave the union - do you really expect Scotland to get a referendum vote?- If England egregiously and fundamentally breaks the Act of Union...are you really of the position that Scotland must wait for Westminster to give a Section 30?

With the fundamental changes England is driving and Westminster's attacks on Scotland's sovereignty (flouting the rights enshrined in the act of union) - circumstances are changing rapidly by the day. This is affecting the foundational Sovereign issue to be asked by Scotland. How can the SNP lock their position about the process to independence without regard to changing threats and legal standing?

If Scotland can't stop behaving like a colony instead of an equal member of a union (one with sovereign rights)...sadly its fate is sealed.

"if England wanted to leave the union - do you really expect Scotland to get a referendum vote?"

They would pass the legislation for a referendum at Westminster, but no - same as how England didn't get to vote in #indyref. It's a daft scenario anyway, as England is the 'boss' country and we're the 'appendages'.

"If Scotland can't stop behaving like a colony instead of an equal member of a union (one with sovereign rights)...sadly its fate is sealed."

You've got the cart before the horse - *if and when Scotland's population starts to be majority pro-independence*, then making unilateral moves might make sense.

Before then frustrated independence supporters can fume online forever and achieve nothing as they're in the minority. That's fine, as long as they don't get so frustrated they start attacking the SNP for not being hardcore enough.

RE: Your comment:"You've got the cart before the horse - *if and when Scotland's population starts to be majority pro-independence*, then making unilateral moves might make sense. "

I disagree. You are asking the wrong question (or you are looking at the issue in a 2014 lens). The question is always what are Scotland's rights and how are they protected...that is what being a sovereign country means.

Sometimes the requirements to protect those rights means decisive action. Protecting communal rights are what movements are made of and the zeitgeist builds its own public consensus. All it takes is a joint expression where the public and their representatives see the issue in that way.

The "rights" of non-state nations are very theoretical - international law is more or less on the side of existing states (eg see Catalonia). So it's academic and pointless to get righteous about Scotland's rights when Scotland's inhabitants aren't much interested. It comes back to actual support for independence being a pre-requisite to us throwing our weight around.

Councillor Hunter is a raving cretin of a zoomer. She supports men wishing themselves into becoming women. She joined in with the attacks on Corbyn over the anti-semitic mural just becauee it was PC to do so. She defended that other bigot of a local government shill R Spear in her misandry and hate campaign against male Yessers.

In short. If she wasn't in the SNP then she'd be round mad mental Jill's house for tea and lagactol.

On the substantive point. Where was the Section 30 order for the EU referendum? Scotland has the legal right to have a vote on independence. We also have the moral right.

Any referendum on independence is therefore lega. the result of any legal referendum has to be recognised by the government if they don't want to be overthrown. A majority for Yes in any legal referendum is a mandate for independence. If our english occupiers refused to accept that mandate then they'd be international pariahs and lose all support. We are not Catalonia. There is no constitutional law binding us to english rule forever. 1 more yes than no vote and we are an independent country, just waiting for the ink to dry on the title deeds.

That said. We will not have a majority for Yes if they allow postal votes, votes by english students , holiday home owners and anybody who's been in Scotland for less than 5 years.

Scots voted for independence. Electoral fraud, massive state propaganda, foreign influence and hundreds of thousands of english voters finding themselves temporarily in Scotland at a fortuitous time denied us our right.

No shame in pointing out the abuse of Scotland by the english either. If it's good enough for Ireland then it's good enough for us too.

How many of the english students in Scotland back in 2014 are still living here anymore? 20,000 of them back in 2014. that's 10% of the no majority. Why should any of them have had a say in the future of a country they had no intention of even living in?

A Section 30 order changes the list of subject matters reserved to the UK Parliament listed in the Scotland Act 1998, thereby allowing the Scottish Government temporary power over constitutional issues.

The EU referendum was run by the Westminster government, which already has powers over constitutional matters. There was no need for a special order. (If there had been such a need, it would not have mentioned "Section 30", because that specifically relates to the Scotland Act.)

I saw kevin hague (hello dogfoodboy!) Ranting about the fiscal transfer again. He pointed out that a large percentage of the deficit is made up of pension payments. Gun - foot - bang!

Start with the basics.

Most of the english in Scotland either moved here as mature workers or as pensioners. most of the Scots in england moved there as young workers.

This means that most english pensioners paid all or most of their NI and taxes to the english treasury in england.

Most of the Scots forced to work in england (even if they come back later in life) also paid all or the majority of their tax and NI to the english treasury.

The liability for paying those pensions rests entirely or in the greater part with england, not Scotland. But in GERS and the Yoons fantasy deficit WE ARE BEING CHARGED FOR ANOTHER COUNTRIES PENSIONERS!

Another massive chunk of the so called deficit, barnett bung, fiscal transfer just vanishes under the slightest scrutiny.

Billions of pounds of english pensions on our account, The entire running cost of Trident on our account, our share of englands debt that england ran up in the 1980s when we had a £300 Billion surplus from NS Oil, added to our account. All a massive fraud and attack on a Sovereign people.

on the other side we have Billions of pounds of Whisky, Oil, VAT, Corporation Tax all stolen from our accounts. Remember that all court fines are sent to england before we get any back.

Never let them get away with their lies. Every time a Yoon starts with their racist, "too poor" insult batter them with the facts and hopefully we can educate those that Leasky and co keep in ignorance.

A rich country kept poor while a large part of the population tug their forelocks at our imperial rulers.

Except there is not, this is from the Scottish Government:ENTITLEMENT TO A SCOTTISH STATE PENSIONState pension entitlement in an independent Scotland would be organised as follows:For those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at thetime of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension willtransfer to the Scottish Government.For people of working age, living and working in Scotland at the time ofindependence, the UK pension entitlement they have accrued prior toindependence will become their Scottish State Pension entitlement. Any pensionentitlement accrued in Scotland after independence will also form part of thatScottish State Pension. On retirement, the Scottish State Pension will be paid by theScottish Government.

Its not the 'Yoons' that need educating, its the 'Nats' who are peddling the same lines that were debunked before the last referendum.

It continues to puzzle me, James, that you let the resident troll post without interference and have done for years, yet jump on others and delete their comments. The blog would be much more rewarding to read without him/it.

On topic, an election called explicitly as a mandate for independence would be a legitimate route. Not sure where that leaves us Greens but I'm sure we would think of some way to support it.

Sigh. I do not "let the troll post without interference". A significant percentage of my life is wasted by deleting his comments, and my only reward is having to trawl through a mountain of drivel about how I supposedly never take any action against him. Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of it. He is not the only person that the moderation policy applies to, and I make no apology whatever for deleting comments that shouldn't be here, no matter who posts them. Some people want to use GWC as an excuse for why they should be allowed to troll to their heart's content. That cuts no ice with me.

"On topic, an election called explicitly as a mandate for independence would be a legitimate route. Not sure where that leaves us Greens but I'm sure we would think of some way to support it."

Unfortunately, this would be a massive test of the Greens' commitment to independence. The only ways they could support it is by standing down for that election, or running a carbon-copy of the SNP manifesto (independence, independence, and nothing but independence) and praying that they don't split the vote too much. Anything else would be standing directly opposed to Independence.

"We already have the mandate for a referendum, that mandate has already been ignored"

Except it hasn't, has it? Nicola Sturgeon sent a letter requesting a Section 30 order, and the response was a General Election. It's never been officially refused yet. It might seem obvious that it WILL be refused, but ask yourself why it wasn't refused last year, and why the rhetoric was "now is not the time" rather than "no".

And for English May, now really is not the time for her is it? I mean she's hanging off the brexit cliff with Boris and co stamping on her fingers.

Brexit is English. Polls show the English don't mind losing Scotland if that's what happens to get brexit. They don't care about Scotland. However, now isn't really the time to be dealing with two sets of negotiatons, so if they can get the SNP to stall on that...

So aye, it wasn't 'no', but an attempt to delay and with the Scottish public saying 'right now probably isn't the time', the Scottish government have had to take care in deciding when the time actually is.

Things are moving very quickly now and the polls may start to change very rapidly in response. The time may be soon.

If the UK can revoke article 50, then there's also no excuse for a crash out no deal hard brexit either. Just revoke until there's an agreed plan, then re-submit as needed. Even if you are committed to getting to the bottom of the cliff, you don't have to jump; you can search for a path down. Might take you longer, but you'll come out in one piece.

I know what you mean. However, my recollection is that the Scottish parliament voted in favour of requesting to open negotiations on a section 30 with then majority Tory UK government late March 2017. Sturgeon then wrote to the PM asking to discuss this. That UK government replied 'now is not the time' and promptly announced it was stepping down within just a couple of weeks and did so on 27th April. It failed to be returned to power and instead was replaced by a minority Tory-DUP confidence and supply with a weak hold on power.

In that election, the SNP took something of a hit, and as far as I'm aware, that has caused them not to pursue the Section 30 order with the new UK administration? Maybe I'm missing information here, but I can't find references to it being pursued, rather reports of a wait and see the brexit deal approach for now.

I fully agree that London is stalling as much as it can, but it seems clear the Scottish government are holding back too. Some might say it's the wrong approach, others that it's pragmatic in the circumstances.

We may have to head to the courts, but the Edinburgh Agreement set a precedent that is very difficult to roll back. It recognised the right of Scots to decide. In a way, it ended any ambiguity. 2014 was implicit recognition of what UK governments have always grudgingly recognised. If you were going to try the Spain approach, best do that first time round. And recently Westminster voted again in support of Scots soverignty from what I read.

So, yes, they're slippery barstools, and 'now is not the time' still may become a firm 'no'. If so, they give permission for other routes including those used by the Irish and other colonies if needs be; other methods are only illegitimate as long as democracy is in place. If free choice is removed, more direct routes to restore it are permitted. We're not there yet by any means, but it's worth being prepared.

"Even if you are committed to getting to the bottom of the cliff, you don't have to jump; you can search for a path down. Might take you longer, but you'll come out in one piece."

Oof. There's the bad-trip psychosis of Brexit in a nutshell.

"And recently Westminster voted again in support of Scots soverignty from what I read."

Our problem is that for most Scots sovereignty is still seen as an obscure legalistic matter -- the word 'sovereignty' does have that taint to it, unfortunately -- whereas it needs to come centre-stage.

At some point, on the day of another major vote or otherwise, a consultative referendum should be held on a question roughly like this:

Do you believe ultimate decision-making power should rest with:-- the Scottish people-- The House of Commons?

The precise wording I'll leave to the experts, but something along those lines.

The campaign itself would soften up many who voted No to indy and force them and others to weigh up WM v the Scottish people, the historical differences between Scottish and English sovereignty, and so on. The final vote itself would be a walkover and this would then be some addition to our arsenal when negotiating/demanding/simply holding indyref2.

James there are two problems with Scottish independence that we ignore at our peril. One is that we need to secure not just a majority of the electorate on our side (ie not just 51/49) but a clear and unambiguous majority (so something like 60/40). I have spent a lot of the last four years wondering when that campaign is going to start in earnest, rather than listening to Davidson whine about "the day job". The other thing, though, which is highly relevant to what you have written is that we dont only need a majority (though that is sine qua non) but we need, at the other end, the international community to recognise us as an independent state. It is here, I think, your argument starts to go wrong. It is all very well to say "we have a mandate" - and personally, I agree. But unless there is a S30 order, allowing a vote to go ahead then it has to be unofficial, ultra vires etc. Leaving aside that an unofficial vote* might be boycotted by the Unionist side (and generally belittled by the media), it would have to secure a very large majority of the electorate (say 55%+). Even then, if London adopted the Madrid policy and sat tight, refusing to negotiate, what then? How do we secure the support of the international community, which hardly could be said to have rushed to the aid of the Catalans, far less support them. So do we sit and wait? James, I will be 67 next year and I hope to spend my last few years in an independent Scotland. I am motivated by more than impatience. Perhaps we need to look at independence struggles with the UK over the last 100 years. Take Australia, Canada and New Zealand out of the picture and no one left British rule without some sort of struggle. Ireland has had much attention recently, it being 100 years ago. But look at Cyprus, Kenya and indeed most of the African states that have secured independence from Britain - there can hardly be a case where independence was secured merely on the basis of the best argument. Rather the Brits had to be educated that it was time to go. Perhaps though the best example was India, where, with the hot breath of the international community on its neck, but more importantly a campaign of (mainly) passive disobedience, India at last secured its independence. Perhaps we need to think similar thoughts, for if WM will simply road block any move toward independence, we do need to take our own action, but at the same time it has to be directed at a "democratic event" (to use Joanna Cherry's phrase) and that seems to be a referendum. I have no problem with the proposition of using WM General Elections as opportunities to stand candidates on a mandate of a referendum for independence, but I suspect we will need more than this (for the avoidance of doubt, well short of violence). If London plans to mirror Madrid, then perhaps we need to consider how best to adapt Ghandi's strategy which at times made India almost ungovernable - and at the same time, put out links to the international community to give the UK a shove. Chris MeEleny has argued on Twitter that if no referendum then we should adopt the majority of WM MPs argument as a mandate for independence. This has drawn replies from Unionists such as Scotland's Future condemning what they see as "illegality". James, they are frightened of us not playing their game. We cannot play their game, their way and hope to win. We need to play their game our way to win, but the outcome has to be an independence that is recognised by the international community as a whole.

Why on earth would we ever want to start setting artificial barriers in our own path? Stop with the 60%+ 55% of the electorate shite immediately! In a democracy 50%+1 is all it takes. In the UK a "majority" government can be formed with only about 35% of votes cast. Why would we want to make things any harder for ourselves than that?

Holebender - To some extent WM has sold that pass, I agree. This afternoon I heard the Secy of State for NI say that the Brexit vote was clear and authoritative. However, I would still take the view that "more is more" - the more convincing majority is more convincing? Illy - the point is to get the international community onside to recognise our independence. Independence is not only a matter for us but also those we share the planet with. As we have seen over the last two years this is not a practice the UK/WM is good at.Ted Rendall - I would refer you to the theory of requisite complexity (google it!)

Only a one vote majority is required to prevail in a referendum. The Scottish Nat sis party have refused to accept the will of the people in two referendums therefore minorities are entitled to ignore any result in favour of the Nat sis.

You appear to be thinking about independence as if it had the same open ended timeframe as 2014 (Would it have really mattered to Scotland's sovereignty if that referendum was held in 2013 or 2015). That may not be the case very soon.

The threat and the timeframe determine the process options. Eg. Think about if Scotland faced such a threat it had to organise independence in weeks...verses if you had a 10 year window.

Having read comments here and in the National on a similar topic, I would like to ask what would happen if we convened a Scottish Grand Committee, all MPs, all MSPs and all MEPs and asked them to vote on whether we should revoke the Treaty of Union. If the answer was Yes, could we then appeal to International bodies like the UN and the European Court, citing the many examples of England (the other signatory) breaking Articles in that Treaty as well as ignoring Scotland vote to remain in the EU and asking for temporary recognition until we could hold a confirming referendum? Such a referendum should then be held under Scots law and jurisdiction, with international supervision and no interference from any other country allowed. If we were able to have set up Scottish broadcasting and print media in time for this, it should be possible to inform people about the true situation of Scotland in the United Kingdom and obtain a decisive Yes vote.

To me an election would be a very foolish, if not desperate, avenue as a proxy for a referendum.

For one thing it plays into the same field as the unionists in their not allowing even long term residents from EU countries a vote in the EU referendum.

For another it risks pushes for splitting up Scotland where the prime target will be the islands in order to claim some of the sea and seabed including oil and perhaps fish.

It also confirms the constant insistence that the SNP are a one policy party and anything else is just a mirage to hide that fact.

Even if the SNP manage well over 50% of seats in Scotland then they will need over 50% of the votes despite Westminster Governments gaining a mandate on less than that. If they don't then Westminster will point to the lack of mandate for a referendum in the manifesto as a reason to refuse one. At the same time if there is one in the manifesto it'll be pointed at as a sign of weakness.

One thing that the SNP could do, even now, is unilaterally reconvene the Scottish Grand Committee which is meant to oversee some legislation that affects Scotland. It's, in effect, a remnant of the pre union Scot's Parliament hinting at Westminster being a permanent joint session of that and the English and later Irish Parliaments. Given that then a case might be made that Westminster as the joint parliament is subject to all law systems. As such, and even if not, it's sovereignty as far as Scotland is concerned derives from the people of Scotland and the Scottish Grand Committee are the body who that resides in for aspects not already transferred to Holyrood. Hence an S30 order transfers authority not from Westminster as a whole but from Scot's MPs to MSPs

Another mid to upper 40's SNP share in the latest Yougov UK. I have a rather distinct shift to SNP building here in all polls. Might not be a surpise given Corbyn is basically backing May on Brexit and is f'n useless at best to anti-Scottish democracy at worst.

The whole 'Labour can negotiate a new brexit deal in a few weeks' is just plan stupid. It's making Boris sound believable by comparsion.